Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Dyr · 15-07-2018 6:42pm

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

You not a socialist anymore? Looks like another split is underway.

Hi there, Jan 2018 join date guy. Have we met before?

emo72 · 15-07-2018 6:44pm

None of you lads watching the world cup final?

Pac1Man · 15-07-2018 6:46pm

emo72 wrote: »

None of you lads watching the world cup final?

Not diverse enough.

20Cent · 15-07-2018 6:46pm

emo72 wrote: »

None of you lads watching the world cup final?

Definetly incels posting during the match.

mcmoustache · 15-07-2018 6:47pm

emo72 wrote: »

None of you lads watching the world cup final?

I did and I'm waiting on RTE to make the Galway Kerry game available but, as we can all agree on, the RTE player is shíte.

Outlaw Pete · 15-07-2018 6:55pm

emo72 wrote: »

None of you lads watching the world cup final?

Match is over almost an hour.

Was good, there was even something for the feminists.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/15/pussy-riot-claim-responsibility-world-cup-final-pitch-invasion

20Cent · 15-07-2018 7:03pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Match is over almost an hour.

Was good, there was even something for the feminists.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/15/pussy-riot-claim-responsibility-world-cup-final-pitch-invasion

Actually there has been very little commentary about how oppressive the regime in Russia is this world cup. You'd think a freedom lover like Peterson would be all over it. Too busy with the signs on the toilets in universities to tackle it probably.

The group said the pitch invasion had been a protest with demands including:

Free political prisoners.
Do not put people in jail for social media “likes”.
Stop illegal detentions at political rallies.
Allow political competition in Russia.
Do not fabricate criminal cases and detain people for no reason.

Outlaw Pete · 15-07-2018 7:16pm

Brian? wrote: »

I think you’ll find I lost the thread of the argument because of the amount of replies. Apologies.

What’s the question here?

What's the question?

Like I said: some spoofing you're doing here. You know well what the question is. You made the following comment:

Brian? wrote: »

One of JPs straw men. Who’s arguing for equity of outcome? It’s not a goal of any left wing ideology.

Question is: are you serious with the above BS (given that equality of outcome has been pushed for by many left wing politicians for decades).

20Cent · 15-07-2018 7:21pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Question is: are you serious with the above BS (given that equality of outcome has been pushed for by many left wing politicians for decades).

Communists? or who?

Equality of outcome: It describes a state in which people have approximately the same material wealth and income, or in which the general economic conditions of their lives are alike.

Brian? · 15-07-2018 8:01pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What's the question?

Like I said: some spoofing you're doing here. You know well what the question is. You made the following comment:

I apologised for the mix up and this is what I get? Why should I bother?

Question is: are you serious with the above BS (given that equality of outcome has been pushed for by many left wing politicians for decades).

Does politeness cost you anything? Why resort to calling other opinions BS?

Left politicians have been pushing for equality of opportunity. Noy equality of outcome.

Gender quotas in public life are a misguided reaction to he gender imbalance in public life. They were originally intended to bring some balance through providing greater opportunity for women, where there was perceived gender discrimination. Sometimes very real gender discrimination.

They were not conceived as an attempt to create equality of outcome. But as I said, they are misguided. All they really achieve is getting people angry about gender quotas.

Skylinehead · 15-07-2018 8:07pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What's the question?

Like I said: some spoofing you're doing here. You know well what the question is. You made the following comment:

Question is: are you serious with the above BS (given that equality of outcome has been pushed for by many left wing politicians for decades).

Mod: Be far, far more civil or you're out of here.

And lads stop with the incel crap, verging on personal abuse (not you here Pete)

Pa ElGrande · 15-07-2018 9:09pm

Rennaws wrote: »

I just tried to read that article. Wow..

As long as people like Jordan Peterson are annoying the sh1te out of people like the author of that article then they’ll have my full support.

I get more and more right wing by the day listening to these gob****es..

If you can stomach it you can listen to an interview on the conspiracies of the dark web and the alt-right alliance.

Episode #10: Tina-Karen Pusse on Jordan Peterson, Identity Politics and the Online Culture Wars
https://fieldday.ie/tina-karen-pusse-on-jordan-peterson/

DickSwiveller Returns · 15-07-2018 9:32pm

20Cent wrote: »

Actually there has been very little commentary about how oppressive the regime in Russia is this world cup. You'd think a freedom lover like Peterson would be all over it. Too busy with the signs on the toilets in universities to tackle it probably.

The group said the pitch invasion had been a protest with demands including:

Free political prisoners.
Do not put people in jail for social media “likes”.
Stop illegal detentions at political rallies.
Allow political competition in Russia.
Do not fabricate criminal cases and detain people for no reason.

I'm sure it will do a lot of good.

Akrasia · 15-07-2018 9:39pm

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Petersons point is that Equity (Equality of Outcome) is evil and tyrannical and is the basis of the group identity ideology that opened the door for the rise of Lenin,Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who wholesale slaughtered populations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAiDAgLcIbY

And yet he supports 'enforced monogamy' to give equality of outcome in access to heterosexual partnership's.

He has no problem with the ends justifying the means when it suits his conservative ideology

Pa ElGrande · 15-07-2018 9:56pm

Akrasia wrote: »

And yet he supports 'enforced monogamy' to give equality of outcome in access to heterosexual partnership's.

He has no problem with the ends justifying the means when it suits his conservative ideology

Here is what he says about that and why.

Jordan Peterson wrote:

source

So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

That’s all.

No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).

No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.

Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)

Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.

HardQs · 15-07-2018 10:00pm

Akrasia wrote: »

And yet he supports 'enforced monogamy' to give equality of outcome in access to heterosexual partnership's.

He has no problem with the ends justifying the means when it suits his conservative ideology

Monogamy as enforced by social norms, because it benefits women as much as men.
which he has said loads of times.

We live like this already, its the norm to be monogamous, this has been enforced through marriage . At least have a go at a real opinion of his otherwise you play right into his description of his oposition. demonising him because you have no real counter points to make.

2 Scoops · 15-07-2018 10:04pm

Akrasia wrote: »

He has no problem with the ends justifying the means when it suits his conservative ideology

Anyone who doesn't agree with the Feminazi agenda is a right winger!!

Brian? · 15-07-2018 10:12pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Anyone who doesn't agree with the Feminazi agenda is a right winger!!

Doesn't Peterson call himself a conservative?

2 Scoops · 15-07-2018 10:17pm

Brian? wrote: »

Doesn't Peterson call himself a conservative?

I have never heard him say that, got a link?

Brian? · 15-07-2018 10:18pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

I have never heard him say that, got a link?

I asked a question. Why would I have a link? I thought I'd heard him say it.

Brian? · 15-07-2018 10:20pm

Brian? wrote: »

I asked a question. Why would I have a link? I thought I'd heard him say it.

He calls himself a Classic Liberal. Which most people today call a libertarian.

2 Scoops · 15-07-2018 10:20pm

Brian? wrote: »

I asked a question. Why would I have a link? I thought I'd heard him say it.

To the best of my knowledge he has never said that, although plenty of left wing outlets accuse him of it. Google shows up nothing attributed to him either.

He describes himself as a classical liberal.

Taytoland · 15-07-2018 10:28pm

He's not a conservative.

Sweetemotion · 15-07-2018 10:40pm

Brian? wrote: »

He calls himself a Classic Liberal. Which most people today call a libertarian.

Damn those libertarians, wanting people to choose how they live their own life. Without being forced to conform to society.

Pa ElGrande · 15-07-2018 10:43pm

Brian? wrote: »

He calls himself a Classic Liberal. Which most people today call a libertarian.

The libertarians as we know the term today originated in the US around the end of the 1940/early 1950s in order to distinguish themselves from the progressive socialists who had commandeered and corrupted the the term liberal. They do derive some influence from the British Classic liberals and tend to be free market (i.e. voluntary exchange of property rights) orientated, a more strict definition is a political philosophy that rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violence legal or illegal to impose their will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person.

As for Peterson here is what he says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5fNu1d0iJw

HappyAsLarE · 15-07-2018 10:48pm

Lefties are gutted when they learn Peterson is not conservative.

Brian? · 15-07-2018 11:10pm

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Lefties are gutted when they learn Peterson is not conservative.

No we’re not.

Outlaw Pete · 16-07-2018 12:36am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79tWFIaoFZM

2 Scoops · 16-07-2018 12:46am

Brian? wrote: »

No we’re not.

What I don't get though is how you ( and others ) try to portray this kind of faux intellect on Peterson and have continuously argued your viewpoint for months throughout this thread, then go ahead and make the catastrophic error of openly stating that you have no idea of Peterson's political leaning or indeed ideology, but you read it in some left wing column he's a right winger.

Anyone who has even spent a few hours watching Peterson would know he isn't. You try to give the appearance of knowing everything about him, when the reality is you don't know anything at all, but want others to believe you do.

16-07-2018 1:40am

Brian? wrote: »

Left politicians have been pushing for equality of opportunity. Noy equality of outcome.

No, they haven't. Otherwise, 1) the Gender wage gap wouldn't keep coming up by various politicians, and 2) gender quotas wouldn't be encouraged, 3) virtually every government initiative about equality solely refers to women's need to gain equality. Very little if any suggestion of equality for males.

Gender quotas in public life are a misguided reaction to he gender imbalance in public life. They were originally intended to bring some balance through providing greater opportunity for women, where there was perceived gender discrimination. Sometimes very real gender discrimination.

And in the case of very real gender discrimination we have legal provisions within the workplace to address them. We didn't need quotas to bring "equality" since gender quotas are applied only so far as bringing women into a role or workplace, but do not encourage actual equality between the genders.

There are loads of careers/industries where women make up a majority % and there is no call for that to be reduced. Nor is the acknowledgement of the need for "competition, loyalty, dedication, etc" towards working for promotions versus the demand that women be placed in those positions regardless of those who have been working to reach them. Hell, it doesn't even address the issue that in many cases, women were underrepresented because they didn't apply for the jobs... compared to the numbers of men who did.

They were not conceived as an attempt to create equality of outcome. But as I said, they are misguided. All they really achieve is getting people angry about gender quotas.

They're more than simply misguided. They're sexist. They're unfair. And they're going to do far more than simply making people angry... They're encouraging that we move away from equality in the workplace, and equality in social perceptions. That women deserve a step up... even when the playing field is level.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments